Bert Sugar ''Sven Oktte Is A Greater Super Middleweight Than Roy Jones Jr''

Out of interest where were Benn, Eubank, Collins, Watson, McClelland rated? I have no argument with Ottke being above Roy at 168. It's not a p4p list. and that sums it up.

Not that big of a deal. I'd rank plenty of people over Jones at Heavyweight. Wouldn't mean much because he didn't fight there a lot. He fought at Middleweight and Light Heavyweight. I'd actually disagree with Bert, but I wouldn't argue over it.

Out of interest where were Benn, Eubank, Collins, Watson, McClelland rated? I have no argument with Ottke being above Roy at 168. It's not a p4p list.

It was only partly objective though. The formula design was chosen, making the structure subjective and then objectively funneling all the careers through it. I thought it was interesting and enjoyed doing it but could see where some were pulling their hair out. On Ottke, yes, he was quite good. Going back to the amateurs, he was world class for a long time. However, to say he got a LOT of help as a pro is understating. It's one thing to say anyone can get a bad or close d on occasion. It's another to see 5-7 fights that could have been scored against along with the officiating of something like the Reid fight. On neutral turf, dude has at least four losses and none of those to world beaters. And yes, eventually I will re-rate those classes so everything is evenly examined before I do a top 100 or 150 thing someday. Someday being who the hell knows. :) Oh well. So it is with all 'scientific' analysis. You can always attack the approach. I did as well. The good thing was that all the fighters was treated equal which was a nice change from the usual subjective all-time rankings.

I've no interest in what bert sugar has to say, his opinions are retarded and can't be backed up ... he ranked Ezzard Charles above Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe, Foreman, Frazier, Sonny Liston, Patterson etc etc for feck sake. I mean the guy's most notable heavyweight fights are two losses to marciano a KO loss to Walcott and a points win over a shot Joe Louis. He defended it by saying he judged them by what they did at their time and how dominant they were wtf? Charles had like 3 or 4 defences of the title and who did he beat in their prime? Tyson, Bowe, Holmes, Lewis, Frazier,Liston, Foreman etc were all ... ah feck it why am I even bothering Bert Sugar = Retard who loves the sound of his own voice.

Nevertheless your mathematical approach gave an interesting exhibit in unbiased, objective rankings. Obviously there would be flaws, but it was an excellent base for argument. Oh and calling Ottke 'largely a fraud' is stretching it IMO. He was a very good defensive fighter with some very good wins including some that weren't close. I'm not an Ottke fan by any means. In fact he bored me to sleep on occasions... Are you planning on doing your (subjective) all-time rankings in the 'new' divisions? That would be cool. It was only partly objective though. The formula design was chosen, making the structure subjective and then objectively funneling all the careers through it. I thought it was interesting and enjoyed doing it but could see where some were pulling their hair out. On Ottke, yes, he was quite good. Going back to the amateurs, he was world class for a long time. However, to say he got a LOT of help as a pro is understating. It's one thing to say anyone can get a bad or close d on occasion. It's another to see 5-7 fights that could have been scored against along with the officiating of something like the Reid fight. On neutral turf, dude has at least four losses and none of those to world beaters. And yes, eventually I will re-rate those classes so everything is evenly examined before I do a top 100 or 150 thing someday. Someday being who the hell knows. :)

Sort of. Those ratings were an experiment with a formula that I wouldn't use again the same way. It was fun but flawed and came up with some odd results in some classes (even if some good ones in others). I'm sick. Once I started I was going to finish. Ottke was largely a fraud and that numbers based stuff could not compensate for the garbage that went on. I will post MY ratings there someday as I did in the original eight. Nevertheless your mathematical approach gave an interesting exhibit in unbiased, objective rankings. Obviously there would be flaws, but it was an excellent base for argument. Oh and calling Ottke 'largely a fraud' is stretching it IMO. He was a very good defensive fighter with some very good wins including some that weren't close. I'm not an Ottke fan by any means. In fact he bored me to sleep on occasions... To be more clear Bat, if I used the same standard as in the original eight pieces, ottke is barely top ten. Are you planning on doing your (subjective) all-time rankings in the 'new' divisions? That would be cool.

Jones Jr. had more defenses than I remembered actually. Ottke had over 20 defenses though, even if a lot of them weren't spectacular. It's hard to tell longevity to go to hell.

To be more clear Bat, if I used the same standard as in the original eight pieces, ottke is barely top ten.

David Haye was way ahead in that fight and gassed out. David Haye got knockout he made haye quit wave the white flag the towel came out lol lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhWh3tN5s4M&feature=player_detailpage#t=555s chris eubank lost to the better fighters Steve Collins, Joe Calzaghe, Carl Thompson and he beat Nigel Benn, Michael Watson, Thulani Malinga, Juan Carlos Gimenez Ferreyra, Lindell Holmes and Graciano Rocchigiani toney is a drugs cheat

Hardly surprising. Ottke has a great resumé at the weight and Jones wasnt there for that long. Besides such ranking is based on body of work rather than h2h. Let me add that boxingscene's Cliff Rold also had Ottke higher when he ranked the divisions. Sort of. Those ratings were an experiment with a formula that I wouldn't use again the same way. It was fun but flawed and came up with some odd results in some classes (even if some good ones in others). I'm sick. Once I started I was going to finish. Ottke was largely a fraud and that numbers based stuff could not compensate for the garbage that went on. I will post MY ratings there someday as I did in the original eight.

after joe calzaghe beat eubank who was 31 at the time, he only lost to Carl Thompson and we all know what Thompson did to David Haye David Haye was way ahead in that fight and gassed out.

Winner of the Super 6 probably passes them both. That and Sugar must not've seen all of Ottke's "wins."

after joe calzaghe beat eubank who was 31 at the time, he only lost to Carl Thompson and we all know what Thompson did to David Haye When you are standing in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. Steak just schooled you on Eubank/Toney. I suggest you catch some sleep.

:no1: ...... after joe calzaghe beat eubank who was 31 at the time, he only lost to Carl Thompson and we all know what Thompson did to David Haye

I almost just put my head through a wall. That was close. **** off, Bert.

what did toney do after jones?........Montell Griffin twice?......Drake Thadzi who had 8 loses at that time stop hyping toney up he only won 1 championship belt after jones beat him lets see...he beat Jirov, Holyfield, Ruiz, Guinn, and was robbed of a win over Peter...not to mention most people who actually have seen the Griffin fights think that Toney deserved the win in both. and what a silly contradiction. What did Eubank do after Calzaghe beat him? The man was semi-retired and was scheduled to fight a bum at LHW when he got an offer to fight Calzaghe on two weeks notice. hell, what did Eubank do leading up to Calzaghe? He had a number of controversial victories including Ray Close and Benn II, and had retired after losing to Collins twice.

u do realize eubank wanst prime whereas toney was rite??? smh... what did toney do after jones?........Montell Griffin twice?......Drake Thadzi who had 8 loses at that time stop hyping toney up he only won 1 championship belt after jones beat him

fuk him, still were talkin about the division here, no h2h, p4p, ATG sh1t...

eubank was a better win then toney :no1: ......